new york state voting systems primary election pilot report · order to use the voting system. ......

1 | NYS Voting Systems- Primary Election Pilot Report

New York State Voting Systems

Primary Election Pilot Report

9/15/09


Table of Contents

Introduction

Western New York…………………………….5

Eastern New York……………………………..20

Northern New York…………………………….35

Central New York……………………………...39

Appendix A - Sample Voting Notices……………..48

Appendix B – How to Properly Mark a Ballot…53


INTRODUCTIUON

The Election Operations Unit is pleased to report that the Primary Election Pilot Project was, overall, a success. Of the 47 counties which opted to participate in the pilot, 13 of them did not have primaries, leaving 34 counties in the Primary Pilot Project. The anticipation of this pilot project, and the trepidation surrounding this first foray into the precinct-based opscan word, was very evident in the weeks and months leading up to Primary Day. Unit staff fielded numerous pre-election phone calls for support and problem resolution. From an election administration perspective, we collected samples of ballot layouts, notices to candidates, confirmation of pre-election testing and other components of election administration, training materials, county board-created inspector manuals, voter education materials, and other related materials. Our goal was to ensure that the new procedures and processes required by this technology were implemented is as seamless a manner as possible. On Primary Day, the Unit provided help desk support for county boards, as well as our usual broad-based support for all matters of concern to county boards. It became apparent to us that in order to address the most critical of concerns, it is imperative that county boards increase amount of hands-on inspector training, to include new procedures and forms, as well as basics like system on and off tasks, error messages, etc. Another observation shared with us that can be addressed in revised training sessions, One important observation from this pilot is of concern, and can be easily addressed in training, is that inspectors should be familiar with all of their supplies, especially forms and certificates they are required to complete, to better understand which need to be available to them during election day, and which can be completed and stored away in the secure supply bag until they are needed again. For example, the voter check-in table should not be cluttered with official documents which, once completed when polls open, should be stored in the secure supply bag until they are needed again, nor should extra ballots or other similar materials remain on the table. The opportunity for loss, damage or alteration is too great. There is a huge learning curve with this new technology and the best remedy is more training, smaller training classes, hands-on sessions, and where necessary,


the procurement of the services of professional instructors with experience in training adult learners. We will be reviewing the forms and certificates we provided to county boards, and the revisions some boards are suggesting, to better define the purpose and path of travel of those documents, to determine if the collection of the same data on multiple forms is necessary. We will be amending and redistributing our security seal procedures, to better reflect an easy and effective procedure which was successfully implemented by a number of our county boards: the use of color-coded tamper-evident seals. In short, red seals should be used in those areas where seals are confirmed only and are not removed or replaced during Election Day. Green seals are placed in those areas where once confirmed and logged, must be removed and/or replaced, in order to use the voting system. We expect that the General Election Pilot Program will provide us with a broader opportunity to speak with voters and inspectors, gather of their helpful suggestions as well as their criticisms, and will be compiling that report for you, as well. At the General Election, we hope to visit more boards and poll sites, as travel and time may permit, though we will revisit sites where Primary Day observations warranted change, to learn if positive changes were made. Summaries of the findings of the several staff teams which traveled the State observing the implementation of our new opscan systems are contained in this report, for your review.


Western New York

Erie County

Chautauqua County

Steuben County

Yates County

Seneca County

Report by:

Kevin Doyle

Sean Nealon


Primary Poll Site Observations - Western Counties 9-15-09

We visited 5 counties for the purpose of observing primary elections using the new ballots and scanners. These 5 counties were participating in the NYS Voting Systems Pilot Program 2009; Erie, Chautauqua, Steuben, Yates and Seneca. Erie County polls opened at 6:00 am. The other counties opened at 12:00 noon. We were there for the opening and for the first votes in Erie (6:00 am) as well as Chautauqua (12:00 noon). All polls closed at 9:00 PM. We were there for the final votes and closing in Seneca. In all, we visited a total of 17 polling sites and were able to talk with poll workers, voters and even some county election officials. The following is a summary.

Inspectors – Poll site opening

Time arrived to open polls

In Erie County the poll inspectors arrived at 5:00 am to prepare for the poll opening. In all 4 other counties inspectors said they had arrived at least an hour early (11:00 am) to start their preparations.

Did polls open on time?

In all cases (except for 1) the polls opened on time. The poll workers were able to get the machines running and the rooms set up before the voters arrived.


The one exception was a site in Corning that opened a few minutes late (because of difficulty booting up the scanner). In that case it opened at 12:05… also before the first voter arrived.

Time required for boot-up and poll opening tasks and related issues

It took all 17 sites between 20 and 40 minutes to boot-up the scanners. Without exception, every site expressed surprise (and concern) at how long it took. Most said they were expecting the machines to be ready within 3 minutes, however this was attributed to their misunderstanding of a reference in their instructional documentation which stated that once power is connected, a message will appear on the LCD screen (they mistook the message appearance as boot-up, which it is not). They grew concerned at the length of time it was actually taking… even worrying whether they would be ready for poll opening.

Logging security tag data

Most sites did not express any difficulty with the security tags. However a poll worker at Seneca Falls Community Center made a point of calling our attention to his log book and the difficulty and confusion he was having deciphering the tag numbers. A poll worker in Corning pulled all the seals off the machine before being told otherwise by the county board’s representative.


Poll site space – was it adequate to comfortably accommodate scanning system, privacy booths, inspectors, voter traffic?

We observed plenty of space in every poll site, especially considering the low volume of voters in this election. All sites had more capacity than was actually needed. Because there were very few candidates on most ballots, the amount of time it took to fill in the vote and to place it in the scanner turned out to be minimal. Consequently, even when somewhat larger groups of voters arrived at the same time, there was never any wait.

At the County Building polling place in Penn Yan we were told that one of the voters expressed concern about having her privacy booth too close to the adjoining booth. In this case they were using 8 foot tables and had 2 cardboard privacy booths set up on each table. The poll workers simply separated them a bit farther apart and since the vote was so quick, it became a moot point. Note* Perhaps the voter’s point was that when a second person arrived at a table, they could possibly be able to view the seated person’s ballot for a second. The poll worker relating this story seemed skeptical, but was happy to oblige and provide a quick remedy.

Inspectors – Election Day

Assistance provided to voters

Poll workers were very forthcoming in offering help to voters. 1) We overheard many conversations instructing voters to fill in the block

completely 2) In most cases, when voters went over to the scanning machines they asked

how to insert their ballot. One or two poll workers at every site were stationed near each machine. They explained - not always correctly - how to insert the ballot. At a few sites in Erie we saw poll workers were taking the ballot and inserting it themselves… sometimes with privacy sleeves on and sometimes without, sometimes with votes visible… sometimes turning the ballot over so votes were not visible

3) Some poll workers advised the voters to look for the notice on the scanner that their ballot had been successfully cast, however sometimes the voters realized on their own that they needed to do so.


Lines at either privacy booth area or scanner

No lines were observed at any of the locations we visited. Note* There must have been times at some of the more heavily attended polling places that groups of people went to the scanner at the same moment. However the process is so quick it’s hard to imagine anybody becoming impatient.

Voters

Comments on system

There were no outright negative comments. There were a few along the lines of:

“What’s wrong with the old machines?” “The old ones were fine”

The great majority were like these:

“Is that all?” “That was easy!” “Easy as 1-2-3!”

We heard those exact words many times during the day.

Did they have to wait for privacy booths or scanner?

No waiting was observed at any of the locations we visited.

Problems marking ballots correctly

The marking was explained pretty carefully to most voters. Several made mistakes anyway … like putting in an “X” instead of filling in the square. One person crossed out all the candidates he wasn’t interested in. The poll workers collected those ballots, voided them and provided an additional ballot to the voter.

Were voters comfortable and confident with new system?

Most voters we spoke to expressed concern going in… and surprise and relief afterwards. Almost everyone commented on how simple and easy it was.


Questions:

We spoke to a number of voters after they had voted.

Did privacy booths give adequate space and privacy?

All voters we spoke to said they had plenty of space and privacy. Many claimed they were unconcerned about privacy. A few poll sites had metal-framed mobile privacy booths that could easily be moved to hide the ballots from all but the voter. Nobody had an issue with these.

The cardboard privacy booths were another matter. As mentioned previously… we were told of a voter who was concerned that their ballot could be viewed by the person sitting down next to them at an adjoining (cardboard) privacy booth set up on an 8’ table. Note* It does appear that these temporary cardboard privacy booths offer only limited privacy. Someone walking behind could get a momentary glimpse of another’s ballot. Steps could be taken to improve the approach angles and booth placements, but ultimately it’s a matter of room size and traffic flow.


Were ballot instructions easy to understand?

For the most part voters we spoke to said “yes”. Several voters said there was some confusion in the way to mark the vote, but the poll workers were able to explain it. A few of the polling sites in Penn Yan provided excellent voter instructional displays on how to mark and cast ballots.

While completing choices… how long did it take?

All voters asked said it took less than 5 minutes to mark, review and scan their ballot. Note* this was also what we observed at the poll sites. And keep in mind how brief these Primary ballots were.

Any problems putting completed ballot into scanner?

Putting the ballot in the scanner was a little confusing for most voters we spoke to. It didn’t seem to matter what the poll worker said before hand… the voters almost always asked the same question: “which way do I put it in”. A lot said that it didn’t go in the first try, but usually it did on the second attempt. Several voters said that the ballot crumbled up when it went into the machine, but that the scanner indicated it had registered as accepting the vote on the screen. One voter had put an “X” in the wrong spot on the ballot (not in the voting square). When the ballot came back as an under vote the poll worker gave the voter the same ballot back and instructed them to fill in the box. When they did so, the ballot registered as accepting the vote… even though the other mark was still in the candidate’s rectangle outside the voting box.

If problem… which kind

Paper jam

One person said the ballot had jammed in the scanning machine… but also said that it did end up going through when they put it in a second time. Note* We don’t think it was a real paper jam… because they were able to retrieve the ballot

Indication of Over- vote

No voter or poll worker told us of an over vote.


Other

One folded ballot was rejected by a machine. Once it was unfolded, the machine did accept it.

Did optical scan voting machine make it more likely that you would vote in next election, or have no effect?

None of the voters we spoke to actually said that this new voting machine would make them more (or less) likely to vote in the next election. Almost all indicated that it was a lot easier and quicker than they expected. In a poll site in Steuben County a poll worker was told by an elderly voter that she wasn’t going to vote because she couldn’t learn a new machine. There were also a few comments about liking the old lever machines and questioning the need to change. Note* our observation in almost all those cases was that these voters were actually somewhat impressed by how easy the new process and machines were, but didn’t want to admit it.

Observations and Issues

Signs One of the counties, Steuben, had no poll or vote signs out in front of the polling places or on the doors. They did have two little 8 ½ by 11 pieces of paper saying “Distance Marker” hanging at an angle not visible to drivers on the street. There was no other indication that these were poll sites. It took some effort on our part in these 3 polling places to actually find these polls, even though we had the addresses.


Security Sleeves Some counties used the sleeves for every ballot, while some didn’t use them at all. One poll site had only one sleeve at the site. Sharpie pen - voter said they were not able to write in name with such a large point. These were all one-sided ballots. We did see some marking devices that were capable of bleeding through the ballot. Privacy Some poll workers were overly-helpful to the point that such ‘helpfulness’ might raise concerns abaoutr possible electioneering or violating a voter’s privacy. Striking a balance here is an issue to be resolved with better training on this point.

A few poll workers were taking ballots from voters and putting them in the machine for them… with the vote side visible. We saw this at several sites in Erie.

We observed one older voter (who had difficulty getting around) asking a poll worker to read the choices and make the entry for him.

One poll worker mentioned a family member filling out the entries for a sight-impaired parent.

We were told that another poll worker stood next to a Spanish-speaking parent and translated the ballot and then marked the parents’ choices.


Erie County and Steuben County were not actively making use of the Privacy Sleeves. At the Campbell poll site in Steuben County they had only one sleeve available (we didn’t see it being offered or used). They did tell the voters to hide their votes by turning their ballots over before inserting them in the machine. Additional Feedback Tilt Screen Option for Scanner Hamburg town hall – a request for a screen that could be tilted upward, for taller users. Print Size on Ballots One poll site in Erie County expressed frustration in the small font size on their ballot… said it was very hard to read. We suggested they contact their election board with that feedback. Another worker asked that the vote-marking box have a darker outline. Training Most county poll workers we talked to had more than 1 training session. And most of these workers seemed to be adequately trained for opening the poll site as well as oversight of the voting processes and machines. Some counties made a great effort to get the voters comfortable with the new machines and ballots. Several presented them at county fairs with votes on favorite flavors of ice cream, etc. The voters and poll workers in these counties were very confident and enthusiastic about the new systems. It was surprising how many voters we talked to in these counties who had heard about or tried the machines before the election. Erie County poll workers mentioned how good (and entertaining) their county instructors were and seemed very confident in the use of the machines. Their voters seemed informed and confident filling in the ballot and going to the scanning machine. Chautauqua County also expressed appreciation for their training. They made a big effort to get the population exposed to the new system and machines by getting exposure on the news channels and the county fair. The poll workers


seemed very familiar and confident in the whole process. At their main polling station in Dunkirk they even assigned 2 poll workers to a separate room with practice ballots and a scan machine for anyone who wanted to try out the voting system before casting their real vote. Yates had multiple districts voting in the same locations. There were a lot of workers and voters present in the same room. It was all very organized and everything was well orchestrated. They all spoke approvingly of their preparation and training. Seneca County had quite a number of poll workers at their main poll site. They seemed very organized. One worker had some issues with the seal and logging procedures, but seemed to have received good training for his task and everyone said the voting was going smoothly. The election board representative was at the last polling station we went to in order to help them close down the election at 9:00 pm. Our experience and conversations in Steuben County were a bit different. There were no poll signs or site marking near any of the 3 sites we visited… except some small 8½x11 Distance Markers attached to trees and poles 100’ from the entrances. Even when we knew the addresses it was hard to find them. One poll site had 3 workers who had been called in at the last minute (8:00 pm the night before). One worker had some training. The other 2 said they had worked previous elections, but had not been trained on the new machine and ballots. They also mentioned conversations with elderly voters who had opted not to vote because “they didn’t think they could learn how to work the new machines”. These poll workers had some difficulties in getting their machine booted up and the poll open. At another polling station in Corning we heard a voter say they were expecting a touch screen voting machine. Note* We concluded that the voter education effort in this county was not at the same level as the others we visited. The confidence and success of the voting in the various counties seemed to be directly related to the amount and quality of the training and the public awareness efforts of the individual counties. It should also be noted that all poll workers we met expressed pride in what they were doing and made great efforts to solve and smooth out any difficulties.


Poll sites visited:

Erie County (Hamburg, NY 14075):

Hamburg Town Hall 6100 South Park Ave. Moose Lodge 992 45 Church St. Community Center 107 Prospect Ave. Knights of Columbus Hall 36 Pierce Ave. Hamburg Village Hall 100 Main St.

Chautauqua County (Dunkirk, NY 14048):

Joseph J. Steger Apartments 15 N. Main St Church Hall 146 S Jerboa St, Dunkirk, NY Chautauqua County Graf Building 319 Central Ave. First Baptist Church 876 Central Ave.


Steuben County:

Campbell, NY 14821 Town Hall 8529 Main St. Corning (Town), NY 14870 Village Hall 35 Stanton St. Corning, NY 14830 Steuben City Library 300 Nasser Civic Center

Yates County (Penn Yan, NY 14527):

County Auditorium 417 Liberty St. Penn Yan Village Hall 111 Elm St. Benton Town Hall 1000 State Route 14A

Seneca County (Seneca Falls, NY 13148):

Seneca Falls Community Center 35 Water St. Seneca Falls Firehouse 43 W. Bayard St.


Eastern New York

Hamilton County

Fulton County

Saratoga County

Schenectady County

Albany County

Report by:

Field: Phil Jorczak

In House: Rebecca Jones


9-15-09 Primary Day visits to CBOEs and Poll Sites

The following counties were visited on Primary Day: Hamilton, Fulton, Saratoga, Schenectady, and Albany. County boards were visited, as well as various poll sites to gather information for our surveys. The following is a summary of observations:

Pre-Election Testing

Throughout the day, I visited with every CBOE with the exception of Schenectady.

They each provided me with a copy of their pre-election testing schedule, as provided to candidates and party leaders.

None of them reported any major issues encountered by board staff or voting system technicians.

Visit to voting system storage location

Before the polls opened, I asked Hamilton County if I could inspect their voting system storage facility. They graciously accommodated my request, and also provided a blue-print of renovations which will take place at the facility in the near future. Basically, their storage facility is located in the basement of their building. It is a shared space with other county offices, but once renovations are complete there will be chain-link fence partitioning various areas of the space. The voting equipment area will have a locking gate with access only provided to the two CBOE Commissioners. o The storage facility will be secure once the fence and locks are

installed. o It is an appropriate place for the storage of voting equipment. All

other tasks, i.e. programming ballots, marking test decks, audits, recanvassing, etc., will be done in a different space.


Poll site opening (by Inspectors)

What time did you arrive to open polls? o Hamilton

Lake Pleasant Town Hall – 11:20am Wells Community Hall – 11:15am

o Fulton Town of Johnstown Town Hall – 11:25am Johnstown Public Library – 11am

o Saratoga Providence Town of Clerks – 11am

o Schenectady Schenectady High School – 11:30am

o Albany Bethlehem Middle School – 11:20am First United Methodist Church – 11am

Did your polls open on time? o Hamilton

Lake Pleasant Town Hall – Yes Wells Community Hall – Yes

o Fulton Town of Johnstown Town Hall – Yes Johnstown Public Library – Yes

o Saratoga Providence Town of Clerks – Yes

o Schenectady Schenectady High School – Yes

o Albany Bethlehem Middle School – No, 5 minutes late because of

error message when they booted up the system. First United Methodist Church – Yes

Time required for system boot-up and open polls tasks. o Hamilton

Lake Pleasant Town Hall – 40 minutes Wells Community Hall – 25 minutes

o Fulton Town of Johnstown Town Hall – 15 minutes Johnstown Public Library – 15 minutes


o Saratoga Providence Town of Clerks – 20 minutes

o Schenectady Schenectady High School – 19 minutes

o Albany Bethlehem Middle School – 45 minutes. They received an

error message while they tried to boot-up the system. The CBOE staff was called in to fix the issue (had to re-flash the system).

First United Methodist Church – 1 hour. They received an error message while they tried to boot-up the system. The CBOE staff was called in to fix the issue (had to re-flash the system).

All of the poll sites I visited seemed to have enough space for the scanning system, privacy booths, inspectors, voter traffic, etc.

Election Day

None of the Inspectors at any polling place had suggestions regarding how to improve the new forms provided by SBOE. They all thought the forms were very good.

Many of the Inspectors stated that a lot of voters were accidentally marking the wrong area on the ballot, either the party symbol or the entire candidate box, in some cases. I heard many Inspectors ask that the box be bigger. Also, some Inspectors said that there were complaints that the instructions section of the ballot was too small.

Voters needed minimal assistance in using the scanner. Most people walked up to it and fed in their ballots with no assistance. Some voters needed help in feeding the ballot in.

I noticed that every county I visited seemed to issue a different kind of marking instrument. One county used a “Sharpie” type of marker, another used a ball-point pen, and another used a felt-tip pen. There was only one issue that I encountered with the marking instrument. Both polling sites I visited in Hamilton County had issues with the scanner smearing the freshly marked ink on the ballot. Hamilton County was using the “Sharpie” type of marker to mark ballots. In the cases where the ink would smear, the voter


would mark their ballot then attempt to feed the ballot into the scanner before the ink had enough time to dry. This resulted in the scanner smearing some of the votes on the ballot, which forced the scanner to reject all smeared ballots. The Inspectors would then spoil those ballots and issue a new ballot to the voter. Subsequent voters were then instructed to let the ink dry for a minute before inserting their ballot into the scanner. This seemed to resolve the issue.

The only polling place where I noticed a long line forming was at the Lake Pleasant Town Hall in Hamilton County. There was a steady line of voters, around 10 deep, while I was there. I was warned by the Commissioners before going to this site that there was a hotly contested race in the district, which could lead to longer than normal lines. Plus, I arrived just after the polls opened (12:15pm), which could have been a factor as well.

I was at the First United Methodist Church in Albany County for the close of polls. The poll workers seemed to be confused as to the proper procedures for closing the polls. They complained to me that the procedures provided by the CBOE were unclear and that the training they received was inadequate. That being said, they closed the polls with no issues, struggling through the new procedures and asking each other for advice.

Voter Survey

Did the privacy booth give you adequate space and privacy? o Every voter I surveyed answered Yes. Some commented that the

booth should be bigger though to make it easier to mark the ballot without having it hit the edges of the privacy walls, etc.

Were the instructions on how to complete the ballot easy to understand? o Everyone answered Yes.

How long did it take you to complete your ballot? o Everyone answered Less than 5 Minutes, to mark, review and scan

their ballot.

Did you have any problems putting your completed ballot into the scanner? o About half of respondents answered No. Those who answered Yes

had to re-feed the ballot a couple of times before the scanner


accepted it. There were no instances of paper jams or indication of an over vote with any of the voters I encountered.

Does the use of the optical scan voting machine make you: more likely, less likely, or, have no effect on you voting in the next election?

o All said No effect, except one, who answered Less likely. Less likely because if it’s a busier ballot he may not want to take the time to read and mark the entire ballot, and then have to scan it in. He went on to say that voting by the lever machine takes less time.

The following pages show documentation which was provided by the CBOEs:


9/15/09 Primary Election Day

County:

Albany Co.

Polling Place:

A.C.E.S., Orange St. Incubator

255 ORANGE ST

Ward: 003

District: 004

*Not in Pilot Program

At Arrival 2:00pm:

I, Rebecca Jones was there to vote in the Primary and ready to use the AutoMark.

The AutoMark was only plugged into an electrical outlet, NOT ready for a voting

session.

Problem:

Chief Poll Worker stated:

Contacted someone from the State at 11:35am phone call not returned as

of 2:00pm.

No directions/instructions came with AutoMark

Waiting for a technician to come to help her with the AutoMark, did not

want to touch machine until technician was there.

Resolution:

Inspector called Albany County; spoke at length to custodian at 2:00pm, and

followed instructions through the phone call so that the following occurred:

Key to turn on AutoMark was located

Set up of the AutoMark

AutoMark was turned on, taken out of test mode, and into a Voting Session

Privacy Shield was placed properly


I was then able to start and complete my voting session. The only issue I

encountered was that the right green touch arrow did not work. I was able to use

the blue right arrow button on the AutoMark to get to the next page. If other

issues with the AutoMark occurred and were unable to be resolved relatively

quickly, the voter would still be able to fill out a paper ballot.

The Inspector was thankful for the help and support.


Northern New York

Jefferson County

Oswego County

Report By:

Joe Burns


Conversations with Election Inspectors

Every inspector I met had a positive, optimistic attitude about the optical scan machines. I didn’t hear anyone remark that they disliked the new voting machines, and not one inspector even asked me why we had to replace the lever machines. As you can imagine, the vast majority of inspectors could be described as elderly, but no inspector complained to me that the machine was difficult for an older inspector or voter to use. In at least two poll sites, I heard stories about inspectors fighting with each other over who was responsible for booting up the voting machine. The disagreements occurred because too many inspectors wanted to be the ones to open the polls. Inspectors reported to me that the most frequent comment they received from voters as the voters were leaving was that the machine was easier to use than they thought it would be. One election inspector in Oswego County complained to me of the poll site setup given to them by the county BOE commissioners. After talking with her some, I think I was able to get her to realize that there will be a lot of trial-and-error in this process, and there is a good chance that the poll site setup in future elections could be very different than the setup for the 2009 primary. The opening of the polls tasks at the Crisafulli Ice Rink in Oswego, New York began at approximately 11:30am. This was definitely not enough time to have everything ready to go at noon. I mentioned this to Commissioner Don Wart and he agreed. They had always told their inspectors to be at the poll site a half hour before polls open. This year, they told inspectors to be at their poll sites one hour before polls opened. However, Commissioner Wart stated that he believes that this may not have been stressed enough with the inspectors. The Jefferson County commissioners had similar feelings on this matter. Of course, as inspectors get more practice with this new system and new setup, one would expect that they may not need a whole hour before the opening of polls to set up the machine and the poll site.


Without question, I was most impressed with the enthusiasm and optimism of the inspectors. Meeting and interacting with people who have a positive attitude is refreshing.

Conversations with County BOE Commissioners On Primary Day, I met with Don Wart and Bill Scriber, the Commissioners of Oswego County, and Sean Hennessy and Jerry Eaton, the Commissioners of Jefferson County. The problems they heard about from their inspectors and from voters were really not about the new voting machines. For instance, while I was at the Oswego County BOE, Don Wart dealt with an allegation of electioneering at a poll site in the Town of Scriba. That, obviously, is a problem that happens regardless of what type of voting machine a county uses. In talking with Commissioner Wart, he observed (correctly, in my opinion) that the vast majority of issues with the optical scan machines would likely occur at the opening or closing of polls. Future Issues Privacy, privacy, privacy. I didn’t think this was really an issue when a Watertown Daily Times reporter raised it with the Commissioners in Jefferson County. I do now, and I do think we will be hearing more about it in the weeks and months ahead. Some voters (and I saw this with my own eyes) were not at all concerned about privacy. I actually observed voters who wanted to complete their ballot right in front of the inspectors at the sign-in table. These folks were proud of their votes and wanted the world to know. Not everyone, of course, has that same attitude. Some voters thought the privacy booths did not protect the secrecy of their votes. Others thought the trip from the booth to the scanner allowed the world to see their votes. Use of the ballot privacy envelopes was practically non-existent at the sites I visited. Even a friend of mine who voted on the optical scan machines in the Town of Clay remarked to me late Tuesday night that while he liked the new system, he believes there were really no privacy safeguards.


The inspectors at the site I observed at the close of polls had a few minor issues with that task, but everyone cooperated and in the end, it all worked out. As I stated earlier, at least 45 minutes and probably one hour of setup is needed before the opening of polls. A half hour, at this point, is probably not enough time to complete all tasks and forms.

What Worked The Jefferson County BOE made a spectacular optical scan machine “how to” manual for their inspectors. I observed the inspectors following it to the letter at the close of polls, and they found it an extremely helpful resource. The Jefferson County BOE also labeled critical parts of the voting machine and provided instructions and warnings right on the voting machine. Inspectors I observed also found this extremely helpful. The Jefferson County BOE also attempted to designate which inspectors would be responsible for the open of polls, the close of polls, and the scanner generally. This didn’t work out perfectly (the commissioners still heard stories of inspectors fighting over who got to boot up the machine), but the commissioners’ intentions were good.


Central New York

Madison County

Cayuga County

Cortland County

Broome County

Report by: John Ferri Charles Smith


9/15/09 Pre-election Testing

Madison County Board of Elections

Arrived 11:05 AM. Met with both Commissioners, Lynne Jones and Laura Costello, and they indicated the following:

For 1 machine, regardless of being marked by hand or by BMD, every

ballot was rejected by the scanner. They stated they would have to

contact Dominion to determine if the machine would have to be

replaced.

Cayuga County Board of Elections

Arrived 2:30 PM. We met with commissioners Cheryl Heary and Katie Lacey, as well as Deputy Commissioner Tom Prystal Jr.

No issues were reported.

Cortland County Board of Elections

Arrived 4:50 PM. Met with Commissioner Robert Howe and he indicated the following:

The BMD’s firmware media (ITX card) had to be replaced to

accomodate the firmware upgrades. Cards would write to 50% and

then would fail. Reformatting the cards wasn’t working so the county

had to purchase new cards.


Broome County Board of Elections

Arrived at 7:30 pm Met with the Deputy Commissioners, John Sejan and Mary Pines.

No issues were reported.

Storage Facility

Madison County

2 locations:

Site #1 - Storage Room adjacent to the County Board of Elections

Storage area was adequately secure and well lit. The area appeared to

be cramped as machines lined the wall leaving an “aisle” to walk

between the rows.

Site #2 - Basement Storage in Building adjacent to CBOE

Storage area provides a good amount of space to store and test the

machines.

Storage area provides coverage for power supply and also houses

reserve batteries for the polls.

Area is still under construction and is poorly lit.

Single small elevator is the only method to transport machines. The

elevator was not a freight elevator, but a regular elecvator used by

everyone in the building, and it could only accommodate two

machines. There should be concern for the failure of this single

elevator and the ability to get machines out of the facility for delivery

to poll sites.

Cayuga County

Storage area is located at the same site as the Cayuga County Board of

Elections. The area is a reconditioned jail cell.


Storage area provides good security and space to work. The area is

poorly lit and appears to have a limited coverage for available power

supplies.

Additional activities such as re-canvassing and the post-election audit

would not be taking place in this area.

Cortland County

Storage area located a few minutes drive from the Cortland Board of

Elections

Storage area provides excellent area to perform tasks and is well lit.

The area provides excellent coverage for power supply and is well

secure.

Broome County

We did not have time to view the storage facility.

9/16/09 Poll Site Opening

Madison County

Poll Site 1 - Otto Shortell Middle School, 200 Markell Dr. Wampsville 13163 11:40 AM Arrived – Poll opened at 12 Noon

Boot up time of the machine took about 45 minutes.

No apparent difficulty with use of the forms and security tag logging.

Poll site contained within a hallway of the school. The area did not

appear to allow for good traffic flow as there was one entrance/exit

from the polling area. It was difficult for voters exiting after theiur

voting session, as they had to pass between the voters at the privacy

booth and the wall, and were afforded only minimal space.


Poll Site 2 - Municipal Building (courtroom), 205 S Peterboro St, Canastota 13032 12:30 Arrived

Boot up time also took 45 minutes and resulted in late start.

Poll site contained within Courtroom where “gate” divided the room

in half. Voters would enter and exit through the same gate which

hindered the traffic flow and created a very congested environment.

There was little room between the scanner and privacy booths,

creating traffic and privacy issues.


Cayuga County

Poll Site - Aurelius Town Hall, 1241 W. Genesee St. Rd., Auburn, NY 13021 3:10 PM Arrived.

Boot time took about 45 minutes. No indication of a late start.

Poll site contained in a single room also functioned as a temporary

storage area. With three election districts, this resulted in an

extremely cramped environment. Immediate concerns would be

traffic flow and privacy.


Cortland County

Poll Site - County Office building, 60 Central Avenue, Cortland, NY 13045-

2746 5:10 PM Arrived

Boot time took 22 minutes. No indication of a late start.

Poll Site was well lit, spacious area that allowed for excellent traffic

flow. Good spacing between voting machine and privacy booth.

Poll Inspector indicated difficulty using forms, specifically with seal

tracking. A few of the areas the form indicated a seal that wasn’t


shown in their manual. Confusion as to which seal should be

recorded. The detailed manual they were following was produced by

the Broome County Board of Elections.

Broome County

Poll Site - St. John the Evangelist Church, 1263 Vestal Ave, Binghamton NY

13903-1995 8:40 PM Arrived

Boot time took longer than expected. Original opening of polls was

on time, however one machine needed to be rebooted after it was

realized that there was no power to the outlets it was plugged into.

Inspectors indicated the second start took very little time to boot

after the unit was switched to another power outlet.

Poll Site was well lit, spacious area that allowed for excellent traffic

flow. Excellent spacing between voting machine and privacy booths.

We saw no apparent indication of difficulty with forms or security

logging. Broome County BOE created an impressive, detailed

inspector manual, voter education poster and other materials which

were used by inspectors.

Election Day

Madison County

Poll Site 1 - Otto Shortell Middle School, 200 Markell Dr. Wampsville 13163 11:40 AM Arrived – Poll opened at 12 Noon

No difficulty in completing the forms.

One voter did ask for assistance for clarification of the ballot.

No lines at or long waits for the scanner or privacy booth area.

Poll Site 2 - Municipal Bldg (courtroom), 205 S Peterboro St, Canastota 13032


12:30 Arrived


Indicated minimal inspector assistance required.

No observed use of privacy sleeves.

No waiting observed. Indicated a line formed for voters waiting to

scan ballot prior to our arrival.

Cayuga County

Poll Site - Aurelius Town Hall, 1241 W. Genesee St. Rd., Auburn, NY 13021 3:10 PM Arrived


No indication of assistance required from inspectors.

No privacy sleeves made available.


Cortland County

Poll Site - County Office building, 60 Central Avenue, Cortland, NY 13045-

2746 5:10 PM Arrived

Indicated that forms for security seal logging were confusing and

inconsistent with the instruction manual that they had received.

Inspectors recommended tabbed areas in the manual, for easier

navigation.


Good use of privacy sleeve.


Broome County

Poll Site - St. John the Evangelist Church, 1263 Vestal Ave, Binghamton NY 13903-1995 Arrived 8:40 PM Polls closed at 9:00 PM


Inspector struggled with results tape. There was much confusion in

transferring numbers from results tapes to canvass sheets.


No privacy sleeves observed.

No lines at or long waits for the scanner or privacy booth area

indicated.

Voter Comments

Madison County

Responses positive from the voters. Most comments were indicative

of surprise at the ease of the process.

Cayuga County

Responses positive from the voters. Most comments surprised at the

ease of the process.

Cortland County

Responses positive from the voters. Most voters commented they

were surprised at the ease of the process.

Broome County

We were not able to measure voter response, however poll workers

indicated the voters response was favorable.

Observations and Conclusions

Madison County

Observations-

Poll Site 2 – Jody McNichol , the Staff Writer from the Oneida Daily

Dispatch, described an issue regarding voter privacy: a line of voters

would form waiting to use the privacy booth, compromising the

privacy of the voter using the booth at the time, and another issue,

related to the poor lighting in the site, which might adversely affect

voters with poor vision.

Separate and secure area within CBOE for election creation.


An active scanner with a sample ‘ice cream ballot’ is available in the

CBOE for the public to try out.

Use of Granger Mat to cover the power cords, tool box liner placed

on the printer to keep the ATI from sliding when not in use.

Excellent use of signs and posters.

Use of color coded seals to determine severity level of area. Green to

indicate okay to remove and replace, yellow to indicate should wait

for advisement before breaking, and red to indicate absolutely no

removal.

Conclusions –

Issues seemed to lie in the selection of the polling site as both sites were not conducive to traffic flow and presented compromises of voter privacy.

Cayuga County

Observations-

Older privacy shields, provided by Onandaga County, were utilized as

the ones that were ordered never arrived.

Utilized the Print on Demand printer to generate ballots in house.

Inspector stated that there were some voters had problems with the

ballots. The county printed the ballots in house, and the styling made

the selection boxes difficult to see. Also, the party icons were

reduced to the point that they were not very recognizable and made

the ballot confusing.

Conclusions –

Issues seemed to lie in the polling site being too cramped, and the styling problems with the ballot that was generated.

Cortland County

Observations-


Use of hoods with LD monograms on them and tags with machine

number on bottom corner of machine.

On election night, ballots removed and transported with CF card, to

the CBOE.


Conclusions – Polling site and staging area are good locations. Additional training for inspectors and more comprehensive reference material may be required.

Broome County

Observations-

Advised deputy commissioner that workers need to be at polls earlier

to accommodate machine startup and would need to pay them for

the extra hour.


Conclusions –

There was an excellent amount of space at the polling site. Additional training for the inspectors and modified presentation of the training manual would be helpful.


Appendix A

Sample Voting Notices


Cayuga County


Cortland County


Schenectady County


Onondaga County


Appendix B

How to Properly Mark a Ballot


Schenectady County

new york state voting systems primary election pilot report · order to use the voting system. ......

Documents